One of the reasons I like Amazon is their frugality. It doesn't mean they are afraid to spend on worthwhile things or take risks. It just means they think about long term value and not how to impress people.

We do know some things. We know what the fixed costs of a car today are. We know a car that does not need to accommodate a driver can be smaller and thus cheaper to buy. And we know capital costs for a shared car will be paid for by many users, not just one.

Can a roboticab get by with just one seat rather than two? The cheapest robotics might just have one. A smaller vehicle is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate.

Does a roboticab need a trunk? The cheapest roboticabs won't have them. A smaller vehicle is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate.

Does a roboticab need to go as fast as a car driven by humans? The cheapest roboticabs will be under-powered, especially ones that just operate in fairly flat urban area with low speed limits. That's cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate.

Overall, capital and operational costs might be more like a motorcycle's. And you'd be paying only part of the capital costs.

And, of course, you'd pay more when you need a larger vehicle or have baggage to carry.

I see no reason why using roboticabs wouldn't cut costs in half for most car owners.

I see no reason why a roboticab ride wouldn't be competitive with a subway ride, especially if you consider the cost of your time. It will certainly be less hassle, especially if, like many humans, you ever have to do any shopping.

Not that my bulky purchases will ride with me in my 1 seat mo-ped sized roboticab. They'll probably travel in a separate robotruck right behind me.

Our winner-take-all electoral system weakens the power of the voters. It gives power to those that really don't represent any specific constituency. So when they deviate from their promises, there isn't a strong backlash. To be re-elected, they just have to spread enough goodies around. They have to pretend to be everybody's friend. Or at least the majority's.

If the will of the voters is diluted or distorted, somebody ELSE is exploiting that situation.

Proportional representation would undo a lot of this. If I could hire whichever representative I want to exercise my vote in the legislature and, better still, even fire him whenever I want, chances are I will have a representative that follows my wishes. We wouldn't have candidates that lie so much to everybody, because there would be consequences.

There would be more diversity, more choice. It would be a lot easier to find a reliable candidate you could stomach. And your particular political minority would have a seat at the table.

And it would harder for lobbyists to bribe all the reps the way they can with winner-take-all candidates. Each representative they might wish to bribe can't deviate too far from what his or her voters want.

Everybody is in charge of what goes on inside of their own bodies. No freedom could be more fundamental.

But you aren't allowed to pick exactly who exercises your share of the power. So your left with this horrendous pile of poo to pick from. I suggest wearing gloves and using a really long wooden stick to make your choice.